Case 2303599/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J D Stawell v Royal Naval Benevolent Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303599/2018
- Decision date
- 23 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J D Stawell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J D Stawell worked as a registered general nurse at Pembroke House from 28 February 2012 until 27 August 2018. The dispute arose after a July 2018 incident in which resident SS missed a cycle of chemotherapy medication. The respondent investigated the incident by interviewing the nursing staff, including the claimant, and later moved to disciplinary proceedings based on comments the claimant made at the fact-finding meeting.
The tribunal found that the claimant made a series of admissions at the 16 July 2018 meeting, including that she had not read certain letters on SS's file, did not know the side-effects of the chemotherapy, was unclear about SS's condition, and did not read care plans for residents for whom she was not the named nurse. Although the claimant later said the meeting was fast-paced, aggressive, and that documents were waved in front of her, the tribunal preferred the contemporaneous notes and found that she was given the opportunity to respond. It held that the respondent was entitled to treat what she said as raising serious concerns and to continue to a disciplinary hearing.
Applying the constructive dismissal authorities it cited, including Western Excavating, Mahmud, Omilaju and GAB Robins, the tribunal held that the respondent had not committed a repudiatory breach of contract and had not acted in a manner calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence. It rejected the claimant's complaints that the respondent pursued a case it knew to be false, refused to communicate properly, or unfairly handled the investigation, and it also rejected her criticism of the I-Care system. The offer to let her listen to the interview recording and review the relevant care plans and MAR charts was treated as a reasonable compromise. The tribunal therefore found that there was no dismissal within section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment records that the complaints of entitlement to a redundancy payment, holiday pay and arrears of pay were withdrawn. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was pleaded and argued as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed within section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal recorded that the complaint of entitlement to a redundancy payment was dismissed on withdrawal; it noted that this was never really a complaint that had been brought. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal recorded the holiday pay complaint as dismissed on withdrawal after clarifying that the claimant was not pursuing outstanding wages or holiday pay. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded the arrears of pay complaint as dismissed on withdrawal; the judgment uses the phrase "arrears of pay" rather than a statutory label. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Woods v W M Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- Baldwin v Brighton and Hove City Council
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.